APHC010678642010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) a FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUSTHs TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA OO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 531 OF 2010 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the order dated 29.4.2010 in WP.No.6711 of 2009 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd, Nagamallithota, Kakinada, E.G. District, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer. 2. The Deputy General Manager,, The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Nagamallithota, Kakinada, E.G. District. ...Petitioners AND Padala Shankar Rao, S/o. Narasimha Rao (As per entry 58 years). Incharge Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Rangampeta Branch, ...Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2010rWAMP 1271 OF 2010 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Judgment dated 29.4.2010 made in WP.No.6711 of 2009 and all proceedings pursuant thereto pending disposal of the above writ appeal. - Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent; SRI M V RAJA RAAM The Court made the following order; APHC010678642010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 531/2010 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the order dated 29.4.2010 and made in WP.No.6711 of 2009 and pass such other order or orders. BETWEEN: 1.THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD NAGAMALLITHOTA, KAKINADA, E.G. DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2.THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,, THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., NAGAMALLITHOTA, KAKINADA, E.G. DISTRICT. • > j ...APPELLANT{S) AND 1.PADALA SHANKAR RAO, S/o. Narasimha Rao (As per entry 58 years). Incharge Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Rangampeta Branch, ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): ' 1.S SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1.M VRAJA RAAM The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: {Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao) The parties involved in this intra-court appeal will be referred appellants herein as respondents and respondent Petitioner, so as to prevent any confusion. herein as Writ 2. The writ of mandamus has been filed to set aside the impugned retirement notice issued vide proceedings Estt/2009 dt 25.03.2009 the grounds that it is illegal, violates legal principles principles of natural justice, and it is discriminatory, and breaches Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India , on contravenes the and to correct the clerical error in service register as well as in biodata as 10.03.1953 per Matriculation Certificate instead recorded as 10.03.1951 as 3. The unnecessary facts are shorn off and the facts which germane for the disposal of the writ appeal are outlined below. 4. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that he submitted his biodata for the post of Paid Secretary on 18.03.1971. In the said biodata, his Date of Birth (DOB) was mentioned as 10.03.1953, and it interpolated as 10.03.1951. However, the writ petitioner had signed i are was in "N the service register as 10.03.1951. Except for his signature and thumb impressions in the service register, all the other blanks were filled up by the respondent authorities. The writ petitioner filed the biodata along with the writ petition and tried to explain how the figures in the year 1953 were written as 1951, particularly the figures “51.” He was not aware of the fact that the recording of the date of birth was mentioned as 10.03.1951, still, a notice of retirement was served through proceedings Estt/2009 dated 25.03.2009 on the writ petitioner. Though a seniority list was prepared, the same was not served on him. As such, the writ petitioner was not conscious about the wrong recording of the date of birth as 10.03.1951 instead of 10,03.1953. 5. Aggrieved by the respondents’ decision in refusing to change the date of birth in the service register and superannuating the petitioner, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 6711 of 2009 in the former Andhra Pradesh High Court. A learned single judge of the High Court has disposed of the Writ Petition vide order dated 29.10.2010 observing in the following which is extracted hereunder; writ “The respondents are directed to verify the date of birth by calling ^ for a report from the Registrar, Andhra University as to the genuineness of the Matriculation Certificate, produced by the petitioner, showing his date of Birth as 10.03.1953 and take apprropriate decision as per law after putting the petitioner notice. If the date of birth is found to be true the petitioner i on IS entitled for reinstatement with all the benefits as if he service till date of retirement.” It is pertinent to mention that prior to filing of the W.P. No. 6711 of 2009, the writ petitioner filed another writ petition for not considering the representation filed by petitioner. The Court directed the respondents in W.P. No. 5375 of 2009, to dispose of the representation and the said representation was rejected on 31.03.2009. was in 6. 7. The respondent authorities challenged the order dated 29.10.2010 in W.P. No. 6711 of 2009 in the present intra court appeal on the grounds that no opportunity of filing counter was given to the respondents to deny the writ affidavit averments, the writ petitioner has numerous occasions to verify his date of birth in the service register and the writ petitioner has never produced the said matriculation certificate at any point of time. And further stated that no alteration of date of birth is permissible at the fag end of the superannuation placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in UOI Vs. C. Ramaswamy\ hence prayed to set aside the order of the learned single Judge and prayed to allow the appeal. 8., Heard learned counsel for the Appellants Sri Basava Srinivas and respondent-writ petitioner Sri M.V. Raja Raam. (1997)4 see 647 5 The counsel for the writ petitioner reinforced his contentions placing reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of R. VIjaya Kumari Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh^ reiterating the facts referred at para No.3. A division bench of the common High Court reversed the finding of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 4374 of 2007 dated 9. 30.06.2008 and allowed the Original Application filed before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, quoting rule 4(1) and (2) of A.P. Public Employment (Recording & Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 and held that “When the authority had stated that there is a clerical error, the government ought to have given permission to correct the date of birth basing on the secondary School Certificate produced by the petitioner. It is to be noted that the clerical had crept in much prior to the rules came into the force. Hence error prayed to dismiss the intra Court appeal. 10. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: i) Whether the alteration of the date of birth is permissible in view of the rules made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide A.P. Public Employment (Recording & Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984? ii) Whether the reliance placed by the Writ petitioner on the ^'udgment in R. Vijaya Kumari Vs Government of Andhra " 2009 (1)ALD 470 Pradesh reported 2009 (1) ALD 470 is applicable to the facts of the case? iii) Whether the learned Single Judge is right in directing the respondent therein to take appropriate decision as per law after putting the petitioner on notice by calling the report from the Registrar, Andhra University, as to the genuineness of the Matriculation Certificate produced by the petitioner and if the date of Birth is found to be true directed to reinstate the petitioner into service? After giving thoughtful consideration, we deliver the following judgment answering the issues as framed; 11. Point No. i) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has enacted the rules i.e. Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984. The procedure in regard to alteration of date of birth once recorded in the Service Registers or Service Records of Government under Rule 4, which is extracted for effective disposal of the appeal reads as follows: 4. Alteration of date of birth in past cases: - Rule 4 re-numbered as sub-rule [{^)] [Added by G.O.Ms. No. 94, Fin. & Pig., dated 15-3-1994. 7 No Government employee in service, before the commencement of these rules; (a) Whose date of birth has been recorded in the Service Register in accordance with the rules applicable to him; or (b) Whose entry relating to date of birth became binding under the rules final and in force prior to the commencement of these rules, shall be entitled to claim alteration of his date of birth. (2) [No subsequent variation of the date of birth in the school records shall be relevant for the purpose of service nor shall such variation be a valid ground for ordering an alteration of the date of birth by any Court. Tribunal authority.] [Added by G.O.Ms. No. 383, Fin & Pig., dated 16- 11-1993, w.r.e.f 21-4-1984.] or other 12. Under sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 of Andhra Pradesh Public (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, Employment 1984, “no subsequent variation of the date of birth in the school records shall be relevant for the purpose of service nor shall such variation be a valid ground for ordering an alteration of the date of birth by any Court, Tribunal or other authority. 13. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant Petitioner has ample opportunity and time to At no point of time, writ petitioner has seniority list prepared was not served is not petitioner to seek alteration of date the Writ verify the service register., verified and the provisional a ground to allow the of birth at the fag end of superannuation. Provisional seniority list shall be published on the notice board and a copy would be served on those incumbents. Even the notice 8 is not particularly served to the writ petitioner, one notice will be 'displayed on the notice board. And it is admitted fact that the writ petitioner has signed and put his thumb impression in the service register where his date of birth was recorded as 10.03.1951 and it is trite that ignorance of law is no excuse. In the biodata, the age was shown as 10.03.1951. Of course, it appears to the naked eye that all the figures are not similar, but it is not interpolation as argued by the counsel for the writ petitioner, as no figure or letter was interpolated. “Interpolate applies to the inserting of something extraneous or spurious. And the biodata cannot be the basis for alteration of date of birth. The writ petitioner did not specifically or evasively deny the 14. respondents-appellants’ counsel's counterintuitive argument that the petitioner failed to produce the Matriculation certificate before the respondents authority, even assuming that the Matriculation certificate is admissible for correction of date of birth under section 35 of the Evidence Act. Section 35 of the Evidence Act provides that the document or record maintained pursuant to any legal obligation is an official document admissible under the provision and in view of the fact that the registers are maintained in every school under statutory compulsion, they can be considered as official records and admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. The firsUssue is answered against the writ petitioner. 9 15. Point No: 2 The judgment relied on by the counsel for the writ petitioner in R. Vijaya Kumari Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh^, is not applicable as in the said case there was an admission made by the authorities that a mistake was crept, the Court has allowed the plea of the writ petitioner therein. In the referred case a representation was made in the year 2000 to correct date of birth as 17.09.1955, whereas in the provisional seniority list it was mentioned as 04.02.1953 much prior to the superannuation. Hence the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case. 16. Point No: 3 Whether the learned Single Judge is right in directing the respondent therein to take appropriate decision as per law after putting the petitioner on notice by calling the report from the Registrar, Andhra University, as to the genuineness of the Matriculation Certificate produced by the petitioner and if the date of Birth is found to be true directed to reinstate the petitioner into service ? In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others v., 17. R.Basavaraju‘^, it is observed as under: ( at para 5) "5. The law with regard to correction of date of birth has been time and again discussed by this Court and held that once the date of birth is entered in the service record, as per the ^ 2009 (1)ALD 470 (2016) 15 see 781 "N 10 educational certificates and accepted by the employee, the same cannot be changed. Not only that, this Court has also held that a claim for change in date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of retirement" 18. In Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Singh^, the Apex Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra and Ann f Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble^ wherein a series of the earlier decisions of the Apex Court were taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri^: In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others^, and in the case of Bharat Cooking Coal Limited and others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh^ and in the case of General Manager M/s. Barsua Iron Ore Mines \/s. The Vice President, United Mines Majdoor Union and Others the reportable Judgment of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development V. 19. 10 as well as in \ ® (2020) 3 see 411 ® (2010)14 see 423 ^(2005).11 see 465 ® AIR 1978 Supreme eourt 851 ® (2020) 3 see 411 ’°2024 see Online Se 491 11 Limited Vs. T.P. Natraja and Others", the Apex Court explicitly delineated that any correction at the fag end must be discouraged. The expostulation made by the Apex Court that change of date of birth cannot be as a matter of right and further held that any change of date of birth as per relevant provisions/regulation applicable and that even if there is cogent evidence of the same, that application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches, if it is made at the fag end of service, particularly when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. 20. 21. It transpires from the record that demand of age has been made' by the writ petitioner at the fag end of his superannuation. In the teeth of the judgments of the Apex Court alone, the Writ dismissed as it is unfit to allow. Petition can be 22. Accordingly the Writ Appeal is allowed and the writ petition stands dismissed. 23. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. I' 11 (2021) 12 see 27 section officer Sd/- E //TRUE COPY// To, 1. OneCCto Sri. S Srinivas Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. M V Raja Raam Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:22/08/2025 ORDER WA NO. 531 OF 2010 ^ 0 8 SEP 2025 m ALLOWING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS